Posting Personal Photographs Online

[Dr. Shane]

I'm seeing that I had valid concerns and that I should NOT have been shunned by the website owner for giving my opinions

I am not convinced the concerns are valid. I have yet to see one case of a predator seeing a child on a church's website that led to the child being sexually abused. If this is such a danger there should be hundreds of cases out there.

Russia is rebuilding its military now. The price of oil has really helped them afford a bigger and better military. In light of this I think we may want to start building bomb shelters to worship in. I mean really, our church buildings cannot withstand an attack from Russian forces. It is dangerous to continue worshiping in buildings made of wood and bricks when Russia is building up such a strong military.

[Outta Here]

I am withdrawing myself from this conversation. I do not appreciate rude or sarcastic remarks. Thank you for your input as to my initial query. Your opinion is valuable to me, and your previous contributions appreciated.

[Dr. Shane]

Sorry if my tactic of showing absurdity by being absurd offended you. If anyone can show me any cases where children have been molested because of churches posting family or group pictures on their website I will most certainly reconsider my position. I never thought terrorism was much of a threat in the US until 9/11 happened.

[Liz]

Hey Aubrey, I know I am coming in late. But at our VBS when we registered the kids, they had a form right then, that parents had to sign if they would allow pictures taken and used. And like Puddles did, at the end of VBS there was a slide show during services of the kids--not all the kids were shown, so I am assuming that some parents declined signing the form.

I think this thread also shows the difference between men and women parenting styles. Women tend to be way more protective and men tend to be more on the outskirts and take a wait and see approach. Neither is better or worse, I think that is one of the reasons why GOD created the family the way he did, so we could balance each other out.

And like everything, if something sounds off to you, better to listen to your gut and go with that, than allow others to disuade you and later regret it. Even if you don't have reams of statistics backing you up. ;-)

[GreatLakesGramma]

I have yet to see one case of a predator seeing a child on a church's website that led to the child being sexually abused.

Better to be safe than sorry. I wouldn't want my child or grandchild to be the first.

[Dr. Shane]

But that philosophy isn't without consequences either. That leads to a lot of innocent, caring and compassionate people getting accused of being predators. I know of a case where a caring man that was good with children was accused of being a predator by a couple that attended our church. Their only basis was because he was friendly. Nothing came of it but the accused was never the same. He stopped interacting with the kids at church because he was afraid of being accused again. Of course the person making the accusations just shrugged it off as "better safe than sorry".

[GreatLakesGramma]

But that philosophy isn't without consequences either.

That depends on how far you take it. It is totally unnecessary to have your child's photo displayed publicly on the internet, and it isn't going to hurt anyone to not allow them to post it. Nobody is advocating shunning everyone who is friendly to children here. That is not the subject of this discussion.

[bonnie]

But that philosophy isn't without consequences either. That leads to a lot of innocent, caring and compassionate people getting accused of being predators. I know of a case where a caring man that was good with children was accused of being a predator by a couple that attended our church. Their only basis was because he was friendly. Nothing came of it but the accused was never the same. He stopped interacting with the kids at church because he was afraid of being accused again. Of course the person making the accusations just shrugged it off as "better safe than sorry".

Generally there is more "than friendly" that causes suspicion.

Maybe the church itself needed to handle it differently.

Other than that church is the place many children feel safe and to trusting.

Why put a child's picture on the internet? No reason to do so whatsoever.

We had a small child here,a little five year old girl,brutally murdered. The reason. Her mother let her go downstairs in the church by herself to the bathroom. She never saw her child alive again.

Maybe caution is absurd to you but I bet this mother would not agree with you

[Dr. Shane]

Actually, I do not believe a child under 12 should be allowed to be unsupervised. I will not let my children go to the bathroom alone. Predators often lurk in restrooms and look for children.

In the situation I was talking about, a member of the church who had been a Primary and Earlyteen Sabbath school teacher, would make small talk with a little girl that was his son's classmate. The parents of the little girl got paranoid and accused him of being a predator. It turned out that his son had a crush on the little girl and would always come home from school and talk about her. As a result the man refused to be a children's Sabbath School teacher again because he feared being accused of being a predator.

[bonnie]

Actually, I do not believe a child under 12 should be allowed to be unsupervised. I will not let my children go to the bathroom alone. Predators often lurk in restrooms and look for children.

In the situation I was talking about, a member of the church who had been a Primary and Earlyteen Sabbath school teacher, would make small talk with a little girl that was his son's classmate. The parents of the little girl got paranoid and accused him of being a predator. It turned out that his son had a crush on the little girl and would always come home from school and talk about her. As a result the man refused to be a children's Sabbath School teacher again because he feared being accused of being a predator.

That was not part of the question or concern was it?? It was putting a child's picture on the internet. If I had to trust my grandchildren's safety to Aubrey or yourself who do you think would be chosen? One that scoffs at someone for being paranoid or one that puts the safety of a child above everything?

Predators are amazingly adept at using what the child trusts most to lure them.

There will always be those unjustly accused. Can't imagine anything worse,but the incidence is very low. But you are talking two different scenerio's

That does not address the predator that has spotted the child's picture on the internet and where they might be found.

A lot fewer children would be molested,abducted and worse if there were more "paranoid" parents.

[Dr. Shane]

I am not in either extreme. One extreme ignores the danger and the other extreme is paranoid. The paranoid extreme seeks to eliminate the danger which cannot be done. We can only manage risk, not eliminate danger.

I suspect the church wants to post pictures on the internet to show they are a family-friendly church. Pictures of kids at VBS or Pathfinders full of smiles and laughing show the church is alive. These types of photos encourage other families to visit the church. Instead of people thinking the Adventists are a bunch of dried-up legalists, they see that we are alive and happy. Obviously we have gotten so paranoid that we are afraid to let people see us having fun because they might target our children. Well, if we are supervising our children we really don't have anything to fear... do we?

[Liz]

I guess one person's "supervision" is another person's "paranoia".

[bonnie]

Quote:

I am not in either extreme. One extreme ignores the danger and the other extreme is paranoid. The paranoid extreme seeks to eliminate the danger which cannot be done. We can only manage risk, not eliminate danger.

There are dangers that can be eliminated. Most mothers I know do everything they can to eliminate the dangers they can.

Children can be abducted in the blink of an eye.

There is no reason to post a child's picture just so you can prove you are not a legalist.

Quote:

I suspect the church wants to post pictures on the internet to show they are a family-friendly church. Pictures of kids at VBS or Pathfinders full of smiles and laughing show the church is alive. These types of photos encourage other families to visit the church.

I doubt seriously very many encourage people to visit the church.

Quote:

Instead of people thinking the Adventists are a bunch of dried-up legalists, they see that we are alive and happy. Obviously we have gotten so paranoid that we are afraid to let people see us having fun because they might target our children.

By showing and identifying our children on the internet?? No thanks. You put your children out there as often as you like to prove you are not extreme,where my children are concerned I have little interest in moderation

Quote:

Well, if we are supervising our children we really don't have anything to fear... do we?

You tell me,you said we could not eliminate this danger concerning our children.Your question says to me that children that are harmed are because the parents are not supervising their children.

[Dr. Shane]

I guess one person's "supervision" is another person's "paranoia".

I don't understand that comment. How is supervision paranoia? I mean, unless we are taking about people that want to go on their children's honeymoon with them. I haven't seen any examples of that in this thread. We have been talking about supervision of kids under 12 by people that have had background checks. I don't consider that paranoia. Who considers that paranoia?

[Dr. Shane]

you said we could not eliminate this danger concerning our children. Your question says to me that children that are harmed are because the parents are not supervising their children.

We can't eliminate all danger. We can only manage risk. Every time we allow our children to ride in a car or a bus we place their lives in danger. So we use seat belts and car seats to manage the risk but we can't eliminate the danger.

Children do get harmed by lack of supervision. Most states have laws against child neglect. Many CPS departments advise that children under 12 never be unsupervised. The best protection for children 12 and above is education. We need to educate our children of the danger signs starting when they are very young.

Our local paper publishes the names and pictures of the kids that make Student of the Month. I suppose some predator could target those kids. It is just the odds are so unlikely that we can't stop living and let fear control our every breath. I refuse to live in that kind of fear.